Legal Opinion
Cereghino v. Boeing Co.
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided May 10, 1993No. Civ. 92-247-JEPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
FRYE, District Judge:
The Honorable John Jelderks, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on March 5, 1993. The plaintiffs filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920, 102 S.Ct. 1277, 71 L.Ed.2d 461 (1982). The matter…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- T.W. Electrical Service, Inc. v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Commodore Business MacHines Inc. And Commodore Business MacHines (Canada) LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cereghino v. Boeing Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1994
- City of Portland v. Boeing Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 2001